Comparison of Instancology with Descartes, Leibniz, Fichte, and Schelling Introduction
Instancology, a contemporary philosophical system developed by Wade Dong, proposes a radical reordering of metaphysical categories by centering the concept of the “instance” and introducing a fourfold relational framework: AA (Absolute Absolute), RA (Relatively Absolute), AR (Absolute Relative), and RR (Relative Relative). This essay compares Instancology with the philosophies of Descartes, Leibniz, Fichte, and Schelling, focusing on their approaches to metaphysics, epistemology, and the absolute. While these Western thinkers are less central to Instancology’s development than Plato, Aristotle, Kant, or Hegel, their systems provide illuminating contrasts and minor influences.
Instancology: Core Framework Instancology asserts that all reality is composed of “instances” that manifest within four ontological zones:
AA (Absolute Absolute): The unspeakable, unconditional ground of all being-beyond concept and relation.
RA (Relatively Absolute): The domain of pure law, logic, and form-structure without representation.
AR (Absolute Relative): The realm of natural entities-nature as it exists, governed by law but not reducible to human constructs.
RR (Relative Relative): The world of human products-language, technology, culture, and symbolic systems.
This system rejects traditional substance metaphysics and dualisms, proposing instead that each “instance” is a concrete, irreducible manifestation of a deeper relational order.
Descartes and Instancology Descartes’ Dualism and Method
Descartes is famous for his method of radical doubt and his division of reality into two substances: res cogitans (thinking substance, mind) and res extensa (extended substance, body). He sought indubitable foundations for knowledge, arriving at “cogito ergo sum” as the first certainty. For Descartes, the mind is a non-extended, immaterial substance, while the body is extended and non-thinking.
Comparison with Instancology
Ontological Structure: Descartes’ dualism roughly maps onto Instancology’s RR (mind, thought, language) and AR (body, nature) but treats them as separate substances. Instancology, by contrast, sees these as relational zones within a single, interconnected ontological order, not as fundamentally distinct substances.
Role of the Absolute: Descartes posits God as the ultimate guarantor of truth and existence, but this absolute is external to the system. Instancology’s AA is the immanent, unspeakable ground of all that is, not a transcendent being.
Epistemology: Descartes privileges clear and distinct ideas as the foundation of knowledge. Instancology, while recognizing the limits of human understanding, emphasizes 悟性 (WuXing)-an intuitive, holistic grasp of instances that surpasses rational analysis.
Instancology’s Critique: It would argue that Descartes’ dualism mistakes relational layers (RR vs. AR) for ontological gaps, and elevates a function of RR (the cogito) to foundational status, ignoring the structural priority of RA and AA.
Leibniz and Instancology Leibniz’s Monadology
Leibniz proposed that reality is made up of simple substances called monads-each a unique, indivisible, windowless center of perception. Monads reflect the universe from their own perspectives and are coordinated by pre-established harmony, with God as the ultimate monad.
Comparison with Instancology
Substance vs. Instance: Leibniz’s monads are metaphysical points of view, each containing a complete reflection of the universe. Instancology’s “instance” is not a substance or a point of view, but a concrete manifestation within a relational framework. Instances are not windowless; their mode of being is defined by their relational context (AA, RA, AR, RR).
Hierarchy and Interconnectedness: Both systems recognize a hierarchy and interconnectedness of reality. However, Instancology’s hierarchy is not of substances but of relational modes, and it denies the existence of an ultimate, all-reflecting monad.
The Absolute: Leibniz’s God is the ultimate monad, the source of pre-established harmony. Instancology’s AA is not a being or an entity but the unspeakable ground beyond all relations.
Instancology’s Critique: It would see Leibniz’s system as remaining within the RR/AR relational zones, never fully articulating the structural distinction of AA or the impersonal logic of RA.
Fichte and Instancology Fichte’s Science of Knowledge
Fichte’s philosophy centers on the self-positing “I”-the absolute, active subject that posits both itself and the not-I (the world). For Fichte, all reality is grounded in the activity of the self, and the external world is a product of the self’s limitation.
Comparison with Instancology
Subjectivity vs. Instance: Fichte’s system is radically subjective: the “I” is the source of all reality. Instancology rejects this subject-object primacy, positing that both subject and object are instances within a broader relational order.
The Absolute: Fichte’s absolute is the self-positing I, an active principle. Instancology’s AA is prior to all activity, relation, or positing-it is the groundless ground, not a subject or will.
Epistemology: Fichte’s knowledge is grounded in self-consciousness. Instancology allows for intuitive insight (悟性) but does not reduce the real to the activity of consciousness.
Instancology’s Critique: It would argue that Fichte’s system is trapped within the RR layer-mistaking the relational mode of the self for the absolute ground.
Schelling and Instancology Schelling’s Philosophy of Nature and Identity
Schelling sought to overcome the subject-object divide by positing an absolute identity-nature and spirit are two aspects of the same underlying reality. His later work emphasizes the “unprethinkable” absolute, which precedes all distinctions.
Comparison with Instancology
Nature and Spirit: Schelling’s absolute identity anticipates Instancology’s non-dualism, but his system still oscillates between subject (spirit) and object (nature). Instancology’s fourfold framework situates both as instances within AR and RR, grounded in AA.
The Absolute: Schelling’s “unprethinkable” absolute resembles Instancology’s AA in being prior to all conceptualization. However, Schelling’s absolute remains somewhat poetic and indeterminate, whereas Instancology formalizes it as the structural ground of all instances.
Epistemology: Schelling values intellectual intuition as a way to grasp the absolute. Instancology similarly values intuitive insight (悟性), but situates it within a broader framework that includes logic and structure (RA).
Instancology’s Critique: It would see Schelling as approaching the insight of AA but lacking the formal relational structure that Instancology provides.
Comparative Table Aspect Descartes Leibniz Fichte Schelling Instancology Ontology Mind-body dualism Monadology (substances) Absolute I (subjectivity) Nature-Spirit identity Fourfold relational modes Absolute God (external) God (ultimate monad) Self-positing I Unprethinkable Absolute AA (groundless ground) Epistemology Rationalism, clarity Rationalism, pre-harmony Self-consciousness Intellectual intuition Intuitive insight (悟性) Reality’s Structure Substances, clear ideas Monads, harmony Activity of the I Dynamic identity Instances in AA/RA/AR/RR Human Knowledge Clear & distinct ideas Reflection in monads Self-awareness Intuition of identity Grasp of instances Conclusion Instancology diverges sharply from Descartes, Leibniz, Fichte, and Schelling by rejecting substance metaphysics, dualism, and the primacy of subjectivity. Instead, it offers a comprehensive relational framework where all things are “instances” manifesting within four fundamental modes. The absolute (AA) is not a being, mind, or will, but the unspeakable, structural ground of all that is. While Descartes, Leibniz, Fichte, and Schelling each grappled with the absolute and the structure of reality, Instancology claims to resolve their limitations by providing a new ontological architecture that integrates law, nature, mind, and the absolute into a unified system.
By situating previous philosophies as partial glimpses within its own broader framework, Instancology both acknowledges their contributions and transcends their limitations, presenting itself as a new foundation for metaphysical inquiry.
|
